Sign up for POLITICO Magazine's weekly email: The Friday Cover

A Republican for Attorney General?

At this point in his presidency, Barack Obama has an opportunity to build consensus. With Eric Holder’s resignation, he should consider taking this opportunity to mend fences and revive a Cabinet once billed as a “team of rivals.” So how about a Republican for attorney general? I have a candidate in mind: former Solicitor General Ted Olson, who will probably curse me for making the suggestion.

No one can argue seriously that Olson lacks the bona fides to serve as attorney general: His name was considered during the tail end of George W. Bush’s second term, and he was shortlisted on several occasions as a possible nominee to the Supreme Court as well. At the time, Olson was blocked from the AG post because, in the words of Sen. Harry Reid, “He’s a partisan, and the last thing we need as an attorney general is a partisan.”

Story Continued Below

Well, let’s consider Olson’s record. He’s been, for one, a vital ally to the LGBT community—a powerful force within his own party on the issue, and a fitting inheritor to some of Holder’s signature accomplishments on marriage equality. As co-lead counsel with David Boies on Hollingsworth v. Perry, Olson courageously challenged California’s ballot initiative banning same-sex marriage. Having argued before the Supreme Court almost 60 times up to that point, Olson still said of the victory, “This has been the highlight of my life.” He also confronted his own party in defending the so-called Ground Zero Mosque, and happens to be married to a card-carrying Democrat.

What’s more, the Justice Department’s work has leaned steadily away from domestic issues and toward national security since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Olson’s wife Barbara was aboard American Airlines Flight 77 that day, and he has staked out positions of principle on our conflict with al Qaeda. For one, he defended the lawyers of terror detainees against conservative criticism, saying, “It is … in the finest tradition of the profession to represent unpopular persons who are caught up in the criminal justice system or even in the military justice system. I think that people who do so, do so honorably.”

Terrorism also happens to be a subject on which the president has more in common with many Republicans than he does with some in the Democratic Party. On surveillance and executive authority, Obama has adopted many of the attitudes of Olson’s old boss, George W. Bush. The transition would probably be an easy one for both of them.

But Olson would be a valuable pick exactly because he isn’t in lockstep with the president on every policy issue. His nomination, and his political independence, would pose a challenge to those in Congress who want to block any nomination. Olson’s appointment as America’s 83rd attorney general would help ensure dispassionate justice, and would confront claims of “partisanship” coming out of Congress.

There happen to be some other worthy Republican candidates: former FBI and CIA Director William Webster, former FBI Director Bob Mueller, former HUD Secretary and U.S. Trade Representative Carla Hills and outgoing senator Saxby Chambliss, to name a few. But the essential point is that posts should be open, whenever possible, to individuals of talent – not just the right party registration.

So who can best ensure that the rule of law applies equally to every American? Who can pursue important ongoing investigations of the IRS, national security leaks and the Ferguson Police Department? Who can finally secure trials for the high-value targets still held at Guantanamo Bay and then close it? And who can bring the right tone and professionalism to lingering tensions in the department?

The choice is the president’s, subject to confirmation by the Senate. But the best choice just might be a Republican.

Jane Harman is president and chief executive of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. A former U.S. representative from California, she was the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee from 2002 to 2006. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.